Subscribe To

Monday, February 15, 2016

Musings on Anarchy

The word anarchy means different things to different people.From a standard dictionary,
anarchy is defined as:

1.a state of society without government or law.

2.political and social disorder due to the absence
of governmental control: The death of the
king was followed by a year of anarchy.Synonyms:
lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.

3.anarchism (def 1).

4.lack of obedience to an authority;
insubordination: the anarchy of his
rebellious teenage years.

5.confusion and disorder: Intellectual and moral
anarchy followed his loss of faith. It
was impossible to find the book I was looking for in the anarchy of his
bookshelves.Synonyms: chaos,
disruption, turbulence; license; disorganization, disintegration.

C16: from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos without a ruler, from an- + arkh- leader, from arkhein
to rule

1530s, from French anarchie or directly from Medieval Latin
anarchia, from Greek anarkhia "lack of a leader, the
state of people without a government" (in Athens, used of the Year of
Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon),
noun of state from anarkhos
"rulerless," from an- "without" (see an- (1)) + arkhos "leader" (see archon ).

The origin of the word indicates no ruler – it doesn’t say anything about no rules.This seems to go
against the idea of chaos and disruption.It even seems to go against the idea of lawlessness – after all, what is
“law” but a rule?

To further explore the roots of the term prior to the 16th
century I offer the work of Fritz
Kern, regarding the view of law from the earlier medieval times:

For us law needs only one attribute
in order to give it validity; it must, directly or indirectly, be sanctioned by
the State.But in the Middle Ages, different
attributes altogether were essential; mediaeval law must be “old” law and must
be “good” law….If law were not old and good law, it was not law at all, even
though it were formally enacted by the State.

No one got to just make up law.This prohibition was not only toward the king
– it was true for all.

Law was in fact custom.Immemorial usage, testified to by the eldest
and most credible people; the leges
patrum, sometime but not necessarily proven by external aids to memory,
such as charters, boundaries, law-books, or anything else that outlived human
beings: this was objective law.And if
any particular subjective right was in dispute, the fact that it was in harmony
with an ancient custom had much the same importance as would be given today to
the fact that it was derived from a valid law of the State.

The relationship between monarch
and subject in all Germanic communities was expressed by the idea of mutual
fealty, not by that of unilateral obedience.

The people swore their oath to the king; in return, the king
was bound to keep his end of the bargain – there were reciprocal duties.The oath was voluntarily taken – each lord
had numerous choices.He didn’t have
infinite choices, but he had numerous choices.

The king is below the law….if the
monarch failed in these duties – and the decision of this question rested with
the conscience of every individual member of the community – then every
subject, every section of the people, and even the whole community was free to
resist him, to abandon him, and to seek out a new monarch.

The king’s only role was to enforce the law – not to define
the law or create the law, but to enforce the law.Each lord held a veto power over the king –
to be proven by demonstrating an old, good law.

Sovereignty, if it existed at all,
resided in the law which ruled over both king and community.But any description of the law as sovereign
is useful only because it emphasizes the contrast with later political ideas;
otherwise it is better avoided.

Today, our thinking is stuck in a paradigm – there must be a
sovereign in physical form, even if one claims the individual as sovereign.In medieval times, if anything was to be
labeled “sovereign,” it was the law.

So I go back to the term anarchy: it comes from a time when
there was no ruler – certainly not in the sense that we understand the word “ruler”
today.While there was no ruler, there
were rules.There was a king, whose duty was to enforce the rules – not to rule. If he did something else than – or something
more than – enforce the rules, those who swore an oath to him had a duty to the
law and not the king.

Who made up the rules?Custom – old and good custom.Nobody got to “make up” the rules, not even the king.Anyone who made up his own rules was rightly
considered a tyrant.

Who enforced the rules?Anyone in a position to do so; yet, he was not enforcing rules of his
own making but rules accepted by the community – defined by custom, old and
good custom.

Conclusion

The non-aggression principle is a rule – don’t initiate
aggression.The application of the rule
can, at times, be tricky.What is to be done
in situations where the answers are gray, where judgement is required?One example – an example that lasted 1000
years, more or less – is offered in the Germanic Middle Ages.The generally accepted culture defined the
application.The law was based on
custom: old and good law.

One can consider the non-aggression principle as quite
old.It is grounded, in addition to
other concepts, in the Golden Rule – found in every major religion
on earth.It certainly would be
considered good (at least by those who claim to adhere to libertarian political
thought) – don’t initiate aggression.

Taking a lesson from the Middle Ages, we might consider that
in a libertarian society the rule must be sovereign over the individual.Who is to ensure this?During those times, every member of the
community had a responsibility to ensure this.

But the NAP isn’t enough.It doesn’t define itself.It
doesn’t apply itself to the countless and ever-changing variables inherent in
the human condition.

No one individual was sovereign in defining the law; no one individual
was sovereign in applying it.The law came
before, and was held above, any individuals.

That is about as good a definition of law in anarchy as I
can write.This is especially so when
considering how the application of anarchic political theory might actually
work in a world populated by humans.It
is certainly about as good a successful real-world example that I have come
across.

18 comments:

The various connotations surrounding the word "anarchy" is one of the reasons I'm gravitating towards referring to myself as a "voluntaryist".

It's the sales person in me I suppose. I've spent most of my adult life selling things so sometimes for better or worse I focus on how other people perceive my word choice, regardless of whether they understand the actual textbook/dictionary meaning, the connotation can be even more important.

My opinion is that the word "anarchy" has never had great connotations, especially in the last 100 years ago- maybe stemming from the Italian bombing self proclaimed anarchists(who weren't?)? Who knows.

Anyway, even the word libertarian connotes some things today, and because of the distortion of libertarian positions(and our own inability to agree in some areas)- who knows what people really think libertarianism "is".

So for now I prefer the word(s) volutaryist/ism. I firmly believe in my conception of the NAP and I think it can be defined in an objective manner most, but not all of the time.

And in that regard, I find myself regretting a statement I made a couple of years ago in regard to Sheldon Richman and the whole "brutalist" debate in which I stated something to the effect "and that would make the NAP subjective, which would be a bad thing" in my response to his egalitarianism....ugh

I have a lot of thinking to do on the whole matter. Culturally, I don't agree with Richman's viewpoints on egalitarianism- but as long as he's not forcing his viewpoints on anyone it would seem to make sense that one day a community might arise where culturally those in it subscribe to the lack of egalitarian(word?) behavior might be considered a NAP violation and as long as they keep to themselves and stay within their community I suppose it could work....

Which leads me to a Roderick Long video in which I saw him debate with someone(can't remember off hand) similar questions surrounding the NAP and his contention was that we bring a certain set of prerequisites into the NAP that impact how people apply it.

At the time, I viewed it simply as a method to push a Leftist agenda in Libertarianism(and it may be!)....but in reflection it's probably an accurate statement even if I wouldn't agree with the outcome that some self described libertarians might pursue with it....but that's "culture" for better or worse I suppose. As long as they aren't forcing it on others, and instead pursue in via respect of property rights(HOA community type rules)...it should be fine.

But the thing that has come out of this whole kerfluffle for me personally has been that I'm far less sure of myself and the NAP(though still a believer) from an objective standpoint.

I have a lot of thinking to do, I have to revisit some of Roderick Long's thinking along those lines as well.

So much of this clears up for me if I think of the 10,000 different communities that would spring forth in a more libertarian world - hence (and forgive my broken record), my advocacy for decentralization always.

My disagreement is when I read that "libertarianism must" contain more than the NAP, or "I have a hard time believing libertarianism is only concerned with the NAP."

This is all that libertariaism is - the NAP grounded in private property. All the other stuff - you go your way, I'll go mine.

For what it’s worth, this term has always struck me as if we advocate everything be done on a non-profit, charitable basis. “What is your political philosophy?” “We volunteer.”

I understand it is not used this way by libertarians who use it, but to your marketing problem…

Anyway, maybe it’s just me.

“…I'm far less sure of myself and the NAP (though still a believer) from an objective standpoint.”

One reason I came out so strongly against Wenzel’s position is that I felt if he was correct in his view (correct meaning consistent with libertarian theory), then libertarian theory is a dead theory. Talk about raising doubts in my foundational political belief.

But as to being sure or not about the NAP – objectively, subjectively, whatever…and again, speaking just for me…

I remain a firm (and sure) believer and advocate because I don’t expect more from the NAP than what it offers. Don’t initiate aggression. What a wonderful political concept.

As we find, sometimes the application is difficult. But as a political theory, it is beautiful in its simplicity.

"For what it’s worth, this term has always struck me as if we advocate everything be done on a non-profit, charitable basis. “What is your political philosophy?” “We volunteer.”

I understand it is not used this way by libertarians who use it, but to your marketing problem…"

I always take opinion in those matters, thank you.

Here's a question, which term do you think carries more baggage in negative connotation, anarchy or "voluntaryism"? I could also ask about libertarianism in the same context too(now that the word has been co-opted in today's language). I can draw a distinction between volunteering and voluntary, which are two different things. The problem with "anarchy" is that it has some negative actual and connotative definitions.

"As we find, sometimes the application is difficult. But as a political theory, it is beautiful in its simplicity. "

In terms of negative baggage, the term anarchy wins. And I will add - although I have not studied this more than scratching the surface - it seems the term always connoted the "bad" anarchy until we come to the recent term "anarcho-capitalism."

But I am not sure the question is one of "baggage." The thing is...what does the word mean to the man on the street? If "volunteerism" sends the wrong message, does it matter that it comes with less baggage?

I like libertarianism - liberty. But then many people hear "libertine." Unfortunately, many left-libertarians demonstrate regularly that libertine is exactly what they mean.

Frankly, I like Wenzel's "Private Property Society" as a term. I just don't like his application (although he seems to be changing his tune quite a bit, albeit without saying so).

"It's the subjectivity surrounding the application of the NAP that is the challenge."

Which comes back to decentralization as perhaps the only (best?) way to put libertarianism into practice. Ten-thousand communities and all that.

"Which comes back to decentralization as perhaps the only (best?) way to put libertarianism into practice. Ten-thousand communities and all that."

No doubt, I agree fully. I have to read more Hoppe too, as I've heard he's written on the topic.

I agree that "Private property society" is good as well, but the difficulty is trying on these words "for size" from the perspective of someone who has no idea what anarcho-capitalist, libertarian, voluntaryism, or private property society "is". We've all been "tainted". We need fresh meat.

There's a reason great ad agencies make the big bucks. (and I loved the Mad Men series, though I never had the talent for that type of work- my sales success has been predicated on personal interaction)

So who's going to start the focus group exploring what words both represent what libertarianism is and convey it in a positive manner? (that also has the benefit of not being able to be corrupted via vague or multiple meaning)

Maybe...maybe....but I can't help but go back to our agreement on the the "baggage" associated with the word "anarchy" and the fact that "anarcho-capitalism" as a reference is used heavily in the libertarian community.

I wonder how many people don't look into libertarianism because of the reference to "anarchy" to start.

Very good background discussion. But the nomenclature is inadequate. Anarchy is generic to both the disorder following the Arab Spring that empowered malevolent interests now raging and the democratic tradition-ruled earlier societies described above. As much as I detest marketing besting logic, perhaps a more nuanced definition of orderly anarchy may be less off-putting.

"Dreams, that governments will make you free,Dreams, that they ain't just war and slavery,Dreams, of your god democracy,You keep dreamin', of more enforced equality,Yes you're dreamin', dreamin' you are freeIn your dreams"

"......In your dream, Donald Trump is not a fraud,In your dream, Sanders is not a fraud,In your dream,all the rest are not frauds,In your dream, Obama is not a fraud,In your dream, Reagan was not a fraud,In your dream, all the rest were not frauds,

In your dream, the constitution was not a scam,In your dream, 9/1 was not a scam......."

"Dreams, that governments will make you free,Dreams, that they ain't just war and slavery,Dreams, of your god democracy,You keep dreamin', of more enforced equality,Yes you're dreamin', dreamin' you are freeIn your dreams"

"......In your dream, Donald Trump is not a fraud,In your dream, Sanders is not a fraud,In your dream,all the rest are not frauds,In your dream, Obama is not a fraud,In your dream, Reagan was not a fraud,In your dream, all the rest were not frauds,

In your dream, the constitution was not a scam,In your dream, 9/11 was not a scam......."

In my country anarchists are bomb throwing violent communists. Even if you tried to explain that you are peaceful people would wonder why on earth you would refer to yourself as an anarchist.

I also like the term Private Property Society. I hate Wenzel's conception of it. I don't think that Wenzel has really attempted to develop the idea. He certainly hasn't been able to offer up a rational defense of it.

I think the idea of focusing on property as a linchpin is going to be a losing one with the larger public. It is also putting the cart before the horse in terms of arguing the philosophy. And it may even be an attempt to red herring the whole issue to distract proponents of the NAP from making their moral argument and winning the fight.

The recent sensationalistic nonsense coming from certain quarters is massive distraction from particular "libertarians" who seem to have lost their damn minds recently. The attempt to broaden the NAP into areas that it doesn't belong, to answer questions about how the State must act and imposing this requirement on libertarians is an attempt to destroy the NAP by neglect. "Thick" libertarianism reveals the proponents for what they are; non-libertarians spewing garbage to discredit the very concept of the NAP, either knowingly or just plain stupidly. It doesn't matter if someone is a paid or unpaid shill, their effect is the same in the end.

Awhile ago Walter Williams, the "conservative", nevertheless made a good point in arguing his case against socialism. Socialists (Progressives, lol) always start the argument by making the demand that non-Socialists must come up with ways to accomplish the Socialists' goals. How shall the masses be fed? How shall everyone be housed? How shall medicine for the public be funded? Williams simply replies that those are problems for a Socialistic government, not a problem for a free society.

"Thick" libertarians are hijacking the movement towards an NAP based society. They are making demands on NAP supporters that actual NAP supporters would not make. Therefore those who demand more from the political philosophy of non-intervention must themselves be interventionists.

Private property is an extension of owning your own person. The argument must always be brought back to the question, "Do I own myself, or does someone else?". Interventionists, Communists and all other central controllers alike, must always admit that the State ultimately owns all individuals and all property. If it didn't, it would not have the authority to take from everyone at the point of a gun. The "government" in Statist societies always has shadow, and final, title to every speck of matter within its spatial boundaries. This is the Achilles heel of the pro-violence (government) position.

The NAP is natural. It is also necessary (and sufficient)as a governing philosophy. "Government" by its nature displaces culture and makes necessary the need to answer strange convoluted questions about interpersonal relationships that are easily answered by thousands of years of human society in its absence.

"Thick" libertarians are simply central planners. Which is to say, they are not libertarians at all. Tell them to take their jackboot and shove it.

Personally, I have no problem with "anarchy" or "anarchism" in any serious discussion of political philosophy. But I use the expression, "a free society," when talking to people who are new to this stuff. It is straightforward and neutral. It highlights the fact that we are un-free in so many ways, and people can relate to that. That gets them in mind of hearing reform proposals, as opposed to being confronted with a scary, unknown ideology. The "ideologue" scares people. Yes, that's a dumb sentiment, but we've all been trained to be leery of such people and their "narrow-minded" political philosophies.

After introducing the idea of a free(er) society, it's rather easy to explain that you promote property rights and non-aggression as primary. These terms and ideas are also rather straightforward and neutral. Who is for aggression? Who denies property rights?

It's also rather easy, I think, to explain and defend capitalism simply as an economic system of property rights and voluntary exchange. Again, who is against property rights except for actual commies? And who could be against voluntary exchange? I find that most people are open to hearing about the proper distinctions to be made between state-capitalism or crony capitalism and real laissez-faire. At this point you can introduce anarcho-capitalism as a term which best describes a system of political and economic freedom. The fact that it's hyphenated pretty much removes the knee-jerk reactions to "anarchy" that people have. And you've already explained what you mean, so a sincere person has no reason to object anyway.

From there, I try to then make them understand that it's also a live-and-let-live notion, so that everyone is free to organize how they see fit. They can have voluntary socialism if they want, they just can't impose it on others. That's when "a voluntary society" also helps clear things up, so they can see you're talking about people making their own choices, and that the capitalism you're talking about is a synonym for freedom in the bottom-up sense and not a top-down system of control. Some may object at this point as to how property is currently distributed, so then you clarify that you defend the right to justly-acquired property as opposed to the lopsided and convoluted situation created by state intervention.

This train of thought seems to nullify the issues people instinctively have with hearing "anarchy" and "anarchism." Other useful terms I find are "self-government," and "localism," and "decentralization." These terms are not loaded with ideology, but strike a note of practicality and pragmatism.

Secession is another word which carries some baggage, but "independence" and "federalism" do not. I like to talk about "free cities" when people have a hard time understanding how a pure non-territorial "governance" would work. It's a whole lot easier to think of numerous yet federated independent cities and townships than a highly theoretical non-territorial structure of society. Breaking through the notion of territories is sort of the last frontier for adventurous political philosophers of freedom. Frankly, I don't think most people can go there, but they can easily understand smaller independent political units.

The idea of a free(er) society should be fun and liberating, and come across as sensible and practical. This is the only political "system" which allows most people to have most of what they want, so it ought to have mass appeal if explained correctly.